Mommy Blogging

Is Cecily “Suitcasing” Again?

Cecily Kellogg, of “polarizing hair” fame, was at the Mom 2.0 summit this weekend. While there she sent out this tweet, inviting attendees to come find her in exchange for free product:

The problem is, Diva Cup is not a Mom 2.0 sponsor - and Mom 2.0 has rules about that:

The entire Mom 2.0 Summit space is reserved for official sponsors who support the Mom 2.0 Summit. These individuals have earned the right to be represented properly, respectfully, and exclusively throughout the venue during the event. Please honor the Mom 2.0 Summit, its sponsors and attendees by honoring this.

In fact, Cecily herself wrote about the practice of pimping your personal sponsors at blogger conferences less than a year ago, claiming “conference sponsors are officially on alert” to such activities. So can someone explain to me why what she’s doing is ok? Though she said these events “leave generous wiggle room to allow bloggers the ability to use sponsorship as a tool to getting to the conference”, the third bullet point on her not-to-do list stated “You CANNOT distribute material or swag for your sponsor”.

So which is it? Is it ok for some people to pass out swag, but not others? Or is it only ok for Cecily “do as I say not as I do” Kellogg?




  1. avatar Liminal

    Rookie questions. This is not my area and I respect you savvy hamcats. So: If a rogue blogger doesn't damage revenues for some conference, 'cause the chosen ones are pulling in millions, will the organizers even bother to discipline her?

    Who tracks how much revenue mommyblogging generates or how much conferences pull in?

    I looked this up (tried), and found only a Crain's piece with yearly totals from one talent agency (representing some bloggers) at $1 mil with $5 mil projected.

    So I respect the independent businesswoman as an essential part of American life, but it rankles me when an industry does not take every opportunity to enforce its own "ethical guidelines." But I am an old hambitch from a different world where we had more than some stinking "guidelines." Fuck your guidelines. Our ethics were codified in state law. Our profession was strict, and it made us proud.

    Mommybloggers. These are people I do not understand.

    THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


  2. avatar Hiding in plain sight

    Partypants: "I’m not one of your useless mommy gras attendees. I’ve seen this shit too many times to believe what some PR hack who is in the business of catering to a bunch of entitled overgrown teenagers promises." Um...ouch. A lot of us who have supported GOMI are the same women who go to these conference and/or work in PR.

    THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar Hiding in plain sight

      Uck. I meant "conferences." I need to stop hitting submit so quickly.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


      • avatar igetasay

        I know that kind of comment might seem hurtful, but I see PP's point. The smile and nod patronizing routine can be even more infuriating than the overtly hostile, cease-and-desist assault that other bloggers send her way, I'd imagine. Put yourself in PP's shoes--she likely has no idea who are her friends and who are her enemies, if they are the same people on different days of the week. That's stressful. It's not personal.

        THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


        • avatar Hiding in plain sight

          Frustration sucks and can make you say things you regret but the response was still mean-spirited. Laura tried to be civil, agreed that there were issues that needed fixing and she got trounced and insulted and so did anyone else who goes to a conference or has to do PR for a living.

          We get mad when people don't respond to us here. We get mad at them when they do. We get mad at them when they send cease and desist letters and when they honestly thank us for our feedback and say they're going to work on fixing it. Is there no way to win?

          I've supported GOMI in spirit and financially because I believed in it. I want to be a part of a website that gives criticism to make people better, not one that just attacks everyone because we assume they're automatically the enemy. We're better than that.

          THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


          • The bitch was poking me over and over while simultaneously using my fucking site to do her shitty attempt at damage control. Pardon me if I didn't respond with a hug and offer her a mint julep. If she wants to do PR she should learn how to do it properly and not be such a fucking hack at it. Here's a free pro tip: don't come in and be a sarcastic twat to the person running the site if you intend to smear your attempts at saving face all over their site.

            THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


            • avatar Respect privacy and lies OH MY

              Maybe she'll invite you to speak next year! LOL

              THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • I would rather roll around on rusty nails in a tub full of saltwater than be at some mommy blogger conference.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar Respect privacy and lies OH MY

                So that's a "thanks but no thanks"?

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • I'll have to discuss it with my dog and handle it internally.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar CatFreckles

                I'll give you a suitcase of Diva cups.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar CatFreckles

                Which may or may not be used.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


            • avatar Hiding in plain sight

              I'm not trying to piss you off but if she really was being rude then I think people here would've stood up for you and would be setting her on fire for being bitchy. We stand up for you when you're attacked because you represent us. I think most people here would say she was nice and civil, especially after being called a "bitch", "sarcastic twat", "fucking hack" and more. I'm not saying this to be argumentative. I just think maybe you're under a lot of stress and you're reading more into things than are there. I could be wrong.

              THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • K. Well, I never responded with any of those phrases before she started coming at me about paying her for some bet, so please stop putting words in my mouth. Whatever, moving on.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar Roxy

                PP, I love you, but wasn't "some bet" the one that YOU made in a comment? I agree with you that Laura is being incredibly wishy-washy and will roll over for Cesspool, but I don't think this level of antagonism is justified. She seemed pretty civil to me.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • She wasn't being civil to me. She was being a smartass. And then continued to make snide responses to me in that thread. Again, pardon me for thinking her attempts to be cute with me were uncalled for and ignorant and pissed me off. And I can feel any fucking way I want about it, thanks.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar Wonton Disregard

                She was not being civil to PP and she was acting like an ass.

                PP is a big girl who addressed Laura quite well. No one needed to rush to her defense. I leave the pearl-clutching to the mommybloggers who put up with the likes of Cecily and her antics.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar eeee

                Fwiw, probably not much, I interpreted her comments about the bet as follows: "You bet $50 that Cecily will be at the next conference & nothing will have happened. I'll take that bet, because I am certain that Cecily will NOT be at the next conference, and that actions WILL have been taken. I am, however, under certain constraints; I'm on my way to the airport [whatever it was] and trying to respond on my SmartPhone. I'm probably .also clicking the links here to see them for myself before CCK deletes them. And aside from all THAT, I do have to talk to my colleagues about this. I'm not in a position to make a definitive statement on it, but I am confident enough about what I am going to demand that I'm letting you know, if you seriously wanna bet, might as well give that $50 over now."

                I think Laura's constrained right now and can't make any big "this is how it'll be" statements until she discusses it with whoever else, but she's (to my eyes) letting people know as subtly as she can that her intention is to ban Cecily from future events, plus whatever other tar-and-feathering they can come up with. I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but I really think she's just trying to defuse the situation until she can make an official statement/action.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


            • avatar igetasay

              No, I get it. I get why you're frustrated. It's patronizing, killing with kindness, and you try to explain, it makes you look like you're being the asshole. Lets just say I have experience with this kind of tactic.

              THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar Respect privacy and lies OH MY

                It's a tactic that is older than the hills, the "we're working on it and it will be addressed" which sadly in most cases means WHATEVER!

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar Wonton Disregard

                Combined with "I am sorry you feel that way..."

                If you are tempted to say these things in response to a public relations problem then just stop posting. Write all those ass-y statements on a piece of paper and throw it away.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar Respect privacy and lies OH MY

                I hate the "I'm sorry you feel that way" too!!

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar eeee

                Oh, did she say "I'm sorry you feel that way"? I may have to reconsider my understanding of her motives for posting here.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar Respect privacy and lies OH MY

                Yes, she said that one of the first things she said. It's on page 1.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar Liminal

                I agree - which is why we learned that when you face a complaint, never try to match - much less trump - your interlocutor's tone. Hear them out - and while I am not sure how this gets done in cyberspace (too old) it probably doesn't include 1) telling people that you're sorry they feel this way - a patronizing remark guaranteed to inflame - and then 2) accepting a challenge bet for cash money.

                If the conference really does have ethical guidelines, but there are no sanctions for violating them, then the organizers have an interesting problem to fix.
                This means that GOMI has done them a favor, and for the organizer to get defensive is a rookie error.

                Plus, Ms. Laura spelled partypants's screen name wrong (spacing error). Yeah, sure, this is picky. Damn right.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


  3. avatar Wonton Disregard

    I am going to post here at the end because I have tried my best to read all of the posts and responses, especially from Laura Mayes, and I want to summarize in one place.

    Laura, while I appreciate your effort in coming here to respond directly, you have missed the point entirely. You need to address your SPONSORS NOW. These are the people who pay your bills and who were observant enough to read the hashtags for an event they sponsored. THEY saw the "suitcasing" by not just an attendee, but a speaker - a speaker whom you had time to call "unstoppable" when Dove paid you to do it, but not enough time to have an intern alert you when she REPEATEDLY tweeted non-sponsored swag giveaways.

    They saw it. They noted it. They will use it when budgeting for next year's event. They will decide how much to spend based on the value THEY attach to your event and that value declines when anyone - Cecily Kellogg, or an actual journalist or celebrity, do anything to devalue that sponsorship.

    In this case, it was not just the flagrant suitcasing that was this issue - it was the manner in which she did it. Three days of tweeting her sponsor's product off your event's hashtag and then she has the absolute unmitigated gall to give DivaCups out at a breakfast?

    That is not just "dropping the ball" or missing a tweet. Your sponsors need to know that people who do these things are not welcomed at your event - and are certainly not asked to be speakers. The only way to effectively do that is to publicly say she is asked to speak in the future and not welcomed to attend. Those are the repercussions for HER actions.

    I have attended hundreds of conferences and meetings over the years and people who flagrantly violate the rules are escorted out of the event and never invited again. I have even seen entire companies excluded from events based on that kind of blatant abuse by a representative.

    If you want the public, as especially corporate sponsors to take your conference seriously and to take the role of "mommyblogging" seriously, then you need to act professionally. Otherwise you are tacitly endorsing any and all "unnofficial" sponsors to suitcase, waterboard or outboard to their heart's content.

    THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar Wonton Disregard

      Sorry, I too am on my phone - edit:

      The only way to effectively do that is to publicly say she is NEVER asked to speak in the future and not welcomed to attend. Those are the repercussions for HER actions.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • All of this.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


      • avatar Princess Hal

        Jeah.

        THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


      • avatar AllyOOP

        PP, if you have such a distaste for mommy blog conferences, why the call for Laura to do something about the violation? I'm genuinely curious... Why not just sit back and watch Cecily light the fuse on Mom2.0's sponsorship prospects and laugh as it all destroys itself? I don't get this feverish demand that they address it by punishing Cecily, when I've never got the impression you care one bit about the longevity or integrity of Laura's organization (nor should you, nor should ANYONE). Why not just watch as they destroy themselves?

        This sponsorship accountability stuff just seems like a witch hunt really - you all want to see Cecily burned at the stake and you've seized upon a prime opportunity to see it happen. I don't see how is has anything do with holding Laura Mayes accountable to her conference's policies or truly caring if she loses sponsors in 2014. I find blogging conferences to be for people whose social prowess peaked in their high school cafeteria, I am amused by Cecily in an 'oh for fuck's sake' kind of way, and I love GOMI because so many people hold those two perspectives as well. I am pleased as punch to just stand back and watch this whole debacle play itself out, but I'm all disoriented by the YOUR CONFERENCE IS BETTER THAN THIS! encouragement sent Laura's way.

        What am I missing?

        THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


        • avatar Miss Noir

          Where on Earth did you get the impression that this is anything other than PP and the majority of us wanting a conference to call out Cecily on her shenanigans?

          Seriously? My only other point is when Laura and her ilk cry foul when WSJ, etc, call their industry unprofessional, these are reasons why.

          But where on Earth did PP type the words "YOUR CON IS BETTER THAN THIS?"

          THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


          • avatar AllyOOp

            Where Wonton Disregard basically schools Laura Mayes on how not to lose her conference sponsors and how to get the public to take her conference seriously. PP says "All of this." Taking WD's post above by itself and PP's "All of this." response - and it's not a stretch - is that Wonton Disregard and PP really care about the quality, integrity, and longevity of Laura's conference and are offering advice vis-a-vis Cecily's suitcasing, because they don't want the conference to suffer.

            Which is total bs, if you follow this site and read PP's posts in other parts of this very post.

            I don't know, it just seems like a disingenuous way to get Mom2.0 to address the issue.

            THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


        • Yeah, I don't get why people are handing out unsolicited advise to Laura on how to do her job. Or attacking her, for that matter. Remember, she's the one who is going to have to deal with Cecily. The rest of us get to point and laugh from a safe distance. Laura is more to be pitied than censured.

          THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


          • avatar Miss Noir

            Because she's here, doing a piss poor PR job and shitting all over the thread. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said shit to her. I could give a pig's fart about a blog conference and I would rather be tied to a chair in a dark room with my eyeballs forcibly held open while a projector plays a continuous loop of Cecily's boudoir shots, than ever attend one.

            THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


            • avatar Magically Delicious

              You should send this torture tactic to The Pentagon!

              THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar sarawr

      I was gonna type out my own reply but this is way better. All of it. All I would add is, Laura, you're not a mommy when your doing your blog job, so quit acting like Cecily is the naughty five-year-old you need to talk to alone. This is a PUBLIC relations fiasco; quit the patronizing "we'll handle it internally" bullshit and handle the public aspects.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar ILoveDavidTennentSoMuch

      Do you have an opening for Best Friend? Cos I'd like to apply....

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar Drunken Polka Dot Feet

      Word

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar MaidenChina

      Diva cups were not the only brand doing this covert sponsorship. I heard about two others, which probably means there were a few more we don't know about. Laura has a bigger problem than just Cecily and Diva Cups when it comes to future sponsors.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar Laura Mayes

      I am so impressed you wrote all of this on your phone. I feel your pain on this point.

      We totally get it. And we are in total agreement.

      We are addressing it with our sponsors, with whom we interact consistently.

      Yes.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


  4. avatar KAS

    Who knew a bunch of free menstrual cups could cause so much drama! Sorry, DivaCup. You didn't cause any of this. Mommy and Daddy still love you!

    THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


  5. avatar EyeRoller

    Ok, I think Cecily is a useless piece of pink trash, but I don't understand what people want from Laura right now. Do you think she is going to publicly flog Cecily on GOMI? Do you think it is her decision alone to decide what happens to Cecily because of this? I hope to hell she loses the opportunity to return next year, not just to this conference, but to others. I hope she loses sponsors from this. If it happens, I will laugh my ass off. But expecting Laura to say "Yes, Cecily is a twat and i will make sure she is blackballed forever and ever" on here.isn't really realistic, even though she may be thinking it.

    THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar Wonton Disregard

      Laura does not need to address anyone here - she did that of her own accord. She has a responsibility to her business to address her sponsors, potential sponsors and attendees publicly. She has many, many options for the proper venue to make that happen. I know of one sponsor who is waiting to hear just that...

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar Sister Friend

      Not on GOMI, no, but - something has to be said publicly about what went down at that conference. Otherwise, everyone will assume nothing happened as a result, and then one (or more) of these happen:

      1. Next year? EVERYBODY does it. Why not? It is a cheaper way for a brand to get their product information out. And when they choose this path, they won't sponsor the whole conference.

      2. This year's sponsors don't come back, and they decide not to work with Laura or other organizers again on this, or any other branded experience, because it isn't worth it for them.

      3. CK gains more traction as a 'rebel', and pulls this crap at other conferences. Those organizers blame the organizers of Mom2Summit, for not doing anything about it when it first happened.

      4. Mom2Summit becomes known as a joke conference - a swag-only non-event, and attracts fewer bloggers, and fewer high-caliber bloggers.

      5. Laura and other organizers lose a ton of credibility in the blogging/branding community, losing opportunities in the future because they allowed this now.

      People here are saying that Laura and CK are friends, and I don't know if that is true or not. But I do know that friends don't deliberately fuck with your business, the way CK did to Laura, for their own gain. Friends don't erode the end result of your hard work and effort, for their own gain. Friends respect the rules you have, and follow them to the letter, whether they agree with them or not. Friends help you build your business, not tear it down. That is why she has to acknowledge it publicly - not doing so is tacit approval of CK's actions.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


  6. avatar J

    Do you think the Diva Cups will go over well at the Disney conference she's attending tomorrow?

    THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar Respect privacy and lies OH MY

      She DID announce on twitter where she is staying!

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


      • avatar mrsjonstewart

        Yick. I'd almost rather not go to Disney than stay at Pop Century...but I'm sure I would have loved it at Tori's age, hope she enjoys it.

        THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar Liminal

      Are Diva Cups made in China? Can't find this on their site - I see how they're made but not where. If they are Chinese-made, then this should match up with Disney very well, with their long list of Chinese holdings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


  7. avatar Laura Mayes

    I do appreciate and agree with the point. Suitcasing and outboarding are terrible and hurt conferences. Cecily should not have done this at Mom 2.0. Period. We are in complete agreement.

    My intent in responding throughout this discussion was never to be patronizing. Never. And I hate that it came across that way in print or in any of this because that's not how I see the world nor is it my intent. I honestly wanted to reply that I appreciated the run of the policy and we are in agreement. That's pretty much it. Period.

    As I mentioned, we were not aware of the Diva Cup handouts until Sunday after the conference. Could we have possibly discovered it sooner? Sure, but to be fair to our team, we were actively attending to other stated sponsor and attendee engagements. As I mentioned earlier there were thousands and thousands of tweets over the weekend, and the handful of DivaCup tweets by Cecily during the conference were missed by our team. I regret that we didn't catch any of this when it was happening. We had a lot of cool things going on ... and a lot of proactive sponsor interactions and activations to deliver. Our social media team is great, and they were busy.

    Suitcasing at conferences is terrible as we all agree here, but outboarding can be even worse because it pulls selected attendees away from the conference experience to benefit a sponsor who didn't have the integrity to help support the actual conference they're exploiting. The worst part about outboarding is not everyone is invited...and it makes people feel crappy because aren't invited to whatever it is. It just sucks all around. And we had isolated issues with both this year.

    I promise that any and all issues we've discovered this year with outboarding and/or suitcasing will be firmly addressed in a manner that's consistent with our wholehearted support for our official sponsors - whether it was done by Cecily or anyone else. We just can't have these things happening at the event or it devalues everyone's experience - sponsors and attendees alike. And you're right, it IS galling that anyone would come to an event that is largely underwritten by paying sponsors with the intent of promoting another parasitic sponsor who does not in any way support the host event. We are 100% in agrement and no one is more sensitive to that fact than we are.

    That said, if someone is looking for a town square lynching of our sponsorship policy offenders, they will be disappointed. My purpose isn't to publicly shame, censure or ban any person or company via GOMI or anywhere else online. Although if you're looking for a public call out, I would consider this entire post and comment section to be just that. My goal is to uphold the integrity of Mom 2.0 and other sponsored conferences, enhance our prevention measures for next year, and make sure that anyone who we discover breaking the rules of our event isn't allowed to do so again. EVER. If that's what you expect to see from us then you will be pleased. You can trust it will be pursued to the very best of our ability and using every resource we have available.

    And again, we thank you for the discussion. I couldn't be more sincere about that.

    THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar DishPit

      I think it's been an interesting discussion and I respect you for posting on GOMI and addressing many of the issues that have been raised. I also think you deserve credit for not using the Twitter defensive.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


      • avatar Hiding in plain sight

        Agreed. Coming back to post something like this is much appreciated. I hope to go to Mom 2.0 next year and I wish you well.

        THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


        • avatar Miss Noir

          Seriously? Nice. nose-67708586290.png

          THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


          • Holy shit, Miss Noir. That is waaaaaay too OTT.

            THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


            • avatar Miss Noir

              Really? I think it's pretty apropos, actually. I also think it's pretty funny that the aspiring bloggers are the ones in this thread who are running up to Laura to get head pats and give praise, while everyone else wishes she would take this super great PR blitz to her own website.

              THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar NoNopeNuhuh

                I'm not an aspiring blogger. And I don't want head pats. I am just posting what I am thinking. I can relate to some of what Laura's dealing with. That's all. It's not a transactional move.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar Miss Noir

                hopefully you would have the where with all to handle it anywhere but here.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar DishPit

                I’m not a blogger, no horse in race, etc… but I think she has kept her side of the discourse civil. You should try the same. You’re quick with name calling and knee jerk reactions. Good for yuks, but not ultimately, for getting your point across.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


          • avatar Hiding in plain sight

            How the shit would I be brown-nosing if I'm anonymous? How would any of us be?

            Being nice isn't brown-nosing. It's just being a decent human being.

            THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


            • avatar Miss Noir

              Okay! See you at the next Mom 2.0!

              THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


              • avatar Stacy's mom

                Remember when Monica Bielanko came in and started spouting off? You're starting to sound like that.

                THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar Diva Gate 2013

      How you decide to handle this is of course up to you. But on a broader scale, I hope that you and other conference organizers realize how frustrating it is to constantly see obnoxious people get away with whatever they want because of something absurd like "online influence" or Twitter popularity. Stuff we all know doesn't count for anything in the real world. Here's an example: I once went to a conference where one of the speeches was called something like "Don't be an online douchebag." I'm not offended by that word and actually agree many people need to be told how not to be an online douchebag, but I think that's SO unprofessional at a conference. The speaker was, no surprises, a total asshat and talked down to everyone. It was a good opportunity to get some solid points across through shock value, but it failed on all levels and some people DID find it offensive. From the conference organizers I talked to, it bombed in feedback, too. I don't need to tell you that the blogger (who is very popular online numbers-wise ONLY) was invited back AGAIN this year to do another speech on the same topic. After hearing that, I'm not wasting my money on airfare and conference tickets this year. All I hear from conferences is "We're getting better! We hear you!" and then it's the same old song and dance by and large.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar Miss Noir

      This is all well and good, but shouldn't you address this on the Mom 2.0 site or your own blog?

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


      • avatar Miss Noir

        I mean, thank for coming and not acting like a loon, but this isn't the venue for your PR damage control. This is a snark site. If you really want to so some damage control, you should address it officially.

        For all we know, you could be Dooce.

        THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


        • avatar Laura Mayes

          It's not PR damage control. It's conversation. You guys are the ones talking about it, and I'm responding where the conversation is happening. That's all.

          THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


          • avatar Miss Noir

            Until you post something on your site, officially, I stand by my assertion that you're not going to do anything, and that you're here to deflect attention away from Mom 2.0 and Cecily.

            But, TBH, I don't care either way. I'm sure there will be something along on the internet I can point and laugh at within minutes.

            THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


      • avatar Drunken Polka Dot Feet

        A very good point.

        THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar NoNopeNuhuh

      Laura, thank you for coming back and posting at length. PR is part of my job and I know how hard it is to walk the line (and how much of an asshole you can look like when trying to give safe answers bc I have been there too). Sure, your posts may read as damage control to some people, but I can see that you are putting yourself on the front lines and taking in what people have said here. It's hard to make promises when shit is still being digested or you're not the only one making decisions.

      I hope when Cecily reads all of these comments she feels ashamed of herself. I mean, since we can't have the spire in the center of town and all. Now I just have to figure out what to do with these "Burn The Witch 2013" shirts I had made.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


      • avatar Laura Mayes

        It's a big topic. And I'm happy to be a part of the conversation when it's relevant.

        THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar Duh

      That's strange that you are against a "town square lynching" of the policy offenders, because it seems like John Pacini did just that the other night to Nicole feliciano. Isn't Carrie Pacini the cofounder of Mom 2.0? Seems like SOMEBODY over there was policing that shit pretty carefully, at least in the case of certain offenders. https://mobile.twitter.com/superjohn/status/331223379073970178

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


      • avatar LickedRandisCake

        Wow, he even refers people to the "great" article Cecily wrote for Babble on outboarding. So, he's praising one of the main offenders. Laura, I'm not sure everyone is taking this Cecily thing as seriously as you think they are.

        THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


        • avatar Tom Servo

          And, and, and.

          Mr. Lady is wagging her finger about outboarding here and defending Cecily's behavior elsewhere on Twitter. For Pete's sake.

          THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


          • avatar Respect privacy and lies OH MY

            Mr Lady later said on twitter that Cecily behavior was suitcasing.

            THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar Bread Blow Job

      Huh huh heh huh, you said "period."

      Twice.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


  8. avatar Diva Gate 2013

    I'm not sure where the best place to put this comment is, so here goes... I know a lot of people who, like Cecily, get very far in life by normal people just not wanting to deal with them. It sounds INSANE (and I think it is, truly) but it happens. I'm thinking of one woman in particular who is so similar to Cecily in both appearance, attitude, and a total disrespect for anyone else's rules and time. I really hope the conference organizers (and hell, anyone!) are listening when I tell you from my years of experience:

    THE ONLY WAY TO STOP HER IS TO CUT HER OFF, COLD TURKEY

    People like her never learn. They have no social norms. They aren't afraid of confrontation, causing a fuss, how people see them, etc. Any attention is good attention to them. Reprimanding someone privately for DivaGate2013 would cause most people to feel all kinds of grief and embarassment, but it 100% won't work on someone like Cessily who does not care. This is also really important (here come the caps!):

    YOU IGNORING HER/BEING AFRAID OF HER MAKES HER SUPER POWERFUL

    This whole blogging thing is a terrible cycle. People feel intimidated by someone they don't even like, yet they still follow them or are nice to them. Then organizers and sponsors go, "Well that person is crass and obnoxious, but she's super popular and 'influential'!" Then more people who hate that person go follow her because "Well I can't stand her, but all of these other people love her so I'm probably wrong!" and so on and so forth. Seriously Mom 2.0 and others, cut ties.

    THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


  9. avatar RollsRoyceRevenge

    All I know is that anyone who invites Cecily to do anything except stop haunting their house has so much wrong with how they perceive reality that nothing will help.

    THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar boxovinopcoltrane

      I invited Cecily to impersonate Ursula from that Disney movie for my daughter's birthday (her name is Zimbabwaylorswift, btdubs), and she said she'd only do it if she could hand out menstrual cups to all the little girls at the party. Unfortunately, I had to reconsider becuz yuk, and chose Messica Quirk to impersonate a homeless person, Indiana University sorority style, instead. Little Z will be slightly disappointed, but I have made her a banner out of upcycled pink and purple weaves so she won't stay p.o.'d for too long! Lurve my little mini-me!

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


  10. avatar pissandvinegar

    I had a diva cup before cancer caused me to go into early menopause; its a great product. But as Laura Mayes comes here to speak about how they are handling it, does anyone else think that the companies sponsoring the individuals to promote their products when its clearly prohibited are also at fault here? I feel like just this response on gomi has promoted diva cups, and cecily is going to say she was just doing what they paid her to do. It seems like Laura Mayes and the conference took a hit, and cecily certainly didn't endear herself to anyone (how she ever has is entirely beyond me, but I digress....). But what about the companies themselves?

    I guess because this is a snark site, and the point is to keep the comments here and not take action, it leaves me wondering what really stops any of these businesses from just paying someone else next year to do the same thing. I'm curious about what others think of this aspect. Anyone?

    THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar DishPit

      Sure but DivaCup doesn't actually appear at conferences, they just get people to do their dirty work for them
      The only way to really stop a company like this from doing what they did is to make it clear to the attendess that they are not allowed to play this game, no?

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


      • avatar NoNopeNuhuh

        The attendees know. The brands know. The brands will play dumb. But they have access to the conference site. They know these things are sponsored. They are exploiting greedy bloggers to work around the rules. DivaCup knew better too.

        THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


        • avatar JalamityCane

          Of course they know. Bloggers are cheap labor and advertising and brands will use them as long as they can.

          As long as bloggers will whore themselves out for a plane ticket and write for page views this will never get better.

          THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • BOYCOTT DIVA CUPS!!!!!

      There. I've started the movement.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


      • avatar Miss Noir

        See, it is their fault Mommy and Daddy don't love each other anymore.

        THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar JackieVoyeur

      But here's the thing. Cecily markets herself as a social media EXPERT so a company would hire her for her expertise then trust her to comport herself appropriately like a professional. I think social media is still very hard for a lot of people to get so they hire someone who looks like they know what they're doing. So I won't put this on Diva Cup. I would put this on the self-proclaimed expert who ought to know the rules of the industry.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


      • avatar JalamityCane

        She's not an expert though. Social media isn't tweeting and writing blog posts. There's more to it than comments and engagement. It's strategic more than anything else and the bulk of the work is done offline. Show me a strategy Cecily put together for a brand and then I'll be willing to discuss her expertise.

        THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


        • avatar JackieVoyeur

          Yeah, I know she's not an expert but obviously her clients don't know that. They read her bio where she says she is and they go, Oh! OK! Here are all our Diva Cups! Not realizing they've hired a fraud. Although I think Cecily actually thinks she is an expert because she's delusional.

          THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


  11. avatar DivaDivaDiva

    Unstoppable Things include Cecily, who is being paid to speak at Blogher (bafflingly) about taking care of the healthcare of your parents. That's why BlogHer defended her on Twitter, in their own best interest for a major speaker to not look bad. Other Unstoppable Things: Outboarding. I'm sure that Mom2 will try to quelch it, but I remember an outboard party Laura and GoMighty threw at BlogHer 12, on her Con Queso blog said it was her favorite memory of that conference, where only a few were invited to promote a book and companies. I remember because I pinned the fun decor and recently looked at my board because I'm using the popsicle idea at a grad party. Not everyone could be invited, and that did indeed suck. Unstoppable.

    THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar QueenCersei

      You're kidding about the Blogher parent health care speaking gig, right?

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


    • avatar Laura Mayes

      Interesting point and differentiation. You are referencing a book launch party for a friend at another friend's house. Not associated with BlogHer or anywhere near the BlogHer venue. In NYC before BlogHer started. No financial sponsors (people got books, calendars, bath products in gift bags). No paid sponsorship, but yes popsicles. It was a party for a friend. Totally different thing.

      THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


      • avatar InvisibleO

        I don't feel invested in this thread continuing here, but maybe somewhere it should. BC that party was written up by Maggie and Sarah, included promotion for GoMighty, Anthropology and Bliss, plus the book. Massive photossharing and a giveaway PR meant to sell books and reputations, timed to take advantage of people in town for BlogHer. Maybe nothing wrong with that but where is the line? It certainly wasn't just a party for friends.

        THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


        • avatar Miss Noir

          But but but, she's taking the time to replyyyyy!

          THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)


  12. avatar Semi Ho

    Ugh. Now even The Bloggess is vaguetweeting about GOMI.
    Is there anyone left in blogland who is not completely up Cecily's bottom?

    I give up, I'm going on an all-reddit diet.

    THIS! (0)NOPE! (0)




↑ Back to Top ↑

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Be sure to proofread before you hit submit!